In a dramatic reversal of his earlier campaign promises, US President Donald Trump on June 22 entered the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran by launching airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. This move has significantly escalated the crisis, raising the risk of a full-scale regional war unless cooler heads prevail among the leadership of the involved nations.
What began as a bilateral confrontation between Israel and Iran has now become a far more complex and dangerous conflict with the United States siding openly with Israel. The most alarming aspect of Washington’s entry into the conflict is its potential to trigger far-reaching changes in the regional balance of power—and even shift global geopolitical dynamics.
Realistically, Iran is now in a precarious position. On the very first day of the US involvement, advanced weapons, including B-52 bombers, were deployed to strike Iranian nuclear sites. Iran appears ill-equipped to counter such high-level aerial assaults. However, according to international media citing Iranian officials, Iran has already moved its stockpile of enriched uranium to undisclosed, presumably safer, locations.
More troubling is the report that even Iran’s heavily fortified nuclear facility at Fordow has come under attack. The US and Israel appear united in their objective: to strip Iran of its nuclear capabilities and prevent it from becoming a nuclear power. Israel has justified its initial strikes—targeting Iran’s army chief and top nuclear scientists—by alleging that Tehran was on the verge of crossing the nuclear threshold. Iran has denied this, insisting that its uranium enrichment levels remain well below weapons-grade. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has, to some extent, supported Iran’s position in its assessments made prior to Israel’s strikes.
At this point, the strategic goals of the US and Israel seem twofold: first, to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program; and second, to bring about regime change by overthrowing the radical theocratic government led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Both Washington and Tel Aviv have hinted at eliminating Khamenei if necessary.
These objectives are closely linked. If the Israeli and American forces succeed in destroying Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and its ability to develop nuclear weapons, the ideological foundation of the current regime—established after the 1979 Islamic Revolution—would be severely undermined. Without its nuclear ambitions, the regime could lose legitimacy in the eyes of many Iranians, potentially triggering widespread dissent and even open rebellion.
The evolving situation is becoming increasingly difficult for the Iranian regime to manage. Both ordinary Iranians and independent analysts have begun questioning the military strategies and ideological rigidity of Iran’s leadership. In response to Israeli attacks, Iran has retaliated with advanced missile strikes. These attacks have reportedly caught both Israel and Washington off guard, as several Iranian missiles managed to breach Israel’s highly regarded missile defense systems, causing significant damage in Tel Aviv and other cities.
Some Iranian commentators, quoted in international media, report growing public sentiment in Iran urging the government to intensify its attacks on Israel, arguing that Israel has not yet been adequately punished for its initial strikes on Iranian soil. Despite these pressures, Iran has so far refrained from directly targeting US military bases in the region, including those in Iraq and Jordan. Tehran is likely aware that such a move would provoke an even greater American military response—something it may not be prepared to withstand. President Trump has already demonstrated a willingness to escalate, and any Iranian strike on US forces could lead to the deployment of more American troops and further assaults on Iran.
Despite Iran’s missile strikes on Israel, which may not yet reflect its full military capacity, there are signs of strategic restraint. This could be an effort by Tehran to leave room for diplomacy and avoid total war. However, if Israel and the US escalate their campaign—especially with intensified attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities—Iran may respond with a full-scale missile barrage against Israel. If the regime finds itself unable to defend against these coordinated assaults, it may also expand its response to include US military assets in the region. Such a move could trigger a regional conflagration with global implications, particularly if powers like Russia—and less visibly, China—choose to support Iran.
This suggests that Israel and the US may not find it easy to achieve their goal of denuclearizing Iran. Still, the possibility of regime change in Iran remains a central objective. Washington and Tel Aviv hope that a new leadership in Tehran will abandon the country’s nuclear ambitions and adopt a less confrontational stance toward the West and Israel.
This strategy echoes previous US and Israeli efforts across the Middle East—in countries like Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria—where regime change often led to the rise of governments either aligned with or less hostile to American and Israeli interests. In the case of Iran, both countries appear to be placing their bets on Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the last Shah, to lead a post-revolutionary government.
Whether Reza Pahlavi would be accepted by the Iranian public remains uncertain. Many Iranians may only consider supporting him if he advocates for continued nuclear advancement, albeit without confrontation with Israel and the US. There is, however, a broad consensus that future leaders would need to distance Iran from its current policy of supporting proxy groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, and the Houthis in Yemen.
For now, the current Iranian regime appears determined to continue its fight, particularly against Israel, and possibly against the US if provoked further. One major strategic option still available to Tehran is the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical choke point through which a significant portion of the world’s energy supply passes. This remains Iran’s most powerful card in the unfolding geopolitical crisis.
However, if present trends continue, the coming months are likely to bring a period of high volatility across the broader Middle East—potentially engulfing not only Iran and Israel, but also neighboring countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan.